Engineer VS. AHJ

[texie]

But some areas do require plans to be reviewed and approved by the AHJ. In that case, they would likely want the installation to match the plans. Now you could certainly resubmit modified plans, pay the additional fee for the second review, and install to that and the AHJ wont care

I agree, an installation must comply with submitted and approved plans, as well as the NEC. Take for example a typical commercial building where the engineer has designed all to be pipe and wire using copper. Now the EC comes along and says he is going to use AL for the feeders and NM cable for the branch circuits. Can this be NEC compliant? Of course, but this is a significant deviation that will require engineering as these substitutions dramatically change a number of calculations such as available fault current, raceway sizing, ampacity calculations, etc.
To allow re-engineering in the field of this magnitude by the EC would make the whole exercise of a plan review pointless. And as mentioned by gadfly this may also constitute engineering without a license.

 

[dkidd]

I agree, an installation must comply with submitted and approved plans, as well as the NEC. Take for example a typical commercial building where the engineer has designed all to be pipe and wire using copper. Now the EC comes along and says he is going to use AL for the feeders and NM cable for the branch circuits. Can this be NEC compliant? Of course, but this is a significant deviation that will require engineering as these substitutions dramatically change a number of calculations such as available fault current, raceway sizing, ampacity calculations, etc.
To allow re-engineering in the field of this magnitude by the EC would make the whole exercise of a plan review pointless. And as mentioned by gadfly this may also constitute engineering without a license.

Apparently, as electrofelon said, a contractor in WA could do it and not be found to be "engineering".

 

[Smart $]

There could easily be issues the EE is aware of that substantiate what appears without that knowledge as exceeding Code minimums. It is not required of the EE to make the AHJ and the EC privy to these issues unless they ask (RFI). Need I say more.

 

[texie]

Apparently, as electrofelon said, a contractor in WA could do it and not be found to be "engineering".

OK, that may be true in WA. My point is where there is a plan review process required, regardless of who is allowed to do design work, to not require a re-review and inspect to approved plans would render the plan review process moot.

 

[texie]

There could easily be issues the EE is aware of that substantiate what appears without that knowledge as exceeding Code minimums. It is not required of the EE to make the AHJ and the EC privy to these issues unless they ask (RFI). Need I say more.

I fully agree. The engineer may have valid reasons why he designed something that seems to exceed code.

 

[Unbridled]

Over/Under-Designed

Over/Under-Designed

Once again, I thank this forum for some fantastic perspectives on these 2 hypothetical questions.
Essentially, I conclude the following:

1. If the project is over-designed by the engineer, then do your installation per the stamped, over-designed drawings.
2. If the project is under-designed by the engineer, then do your installation at least per the minimum code requirements, regardless of the stamped drawings.

Errors and omissions are common place in the engineering workplace. Knowing that, it has always been protocol for me to issue RFI's and VE requests pre-bid or at least pre-contract.

Most generally, these E&O and VE result in Change Orders, so why not take the time to proof your drawings.

Best Regards
:thumbsup:

 

[Fulthrotl]

How is a "Flicker" defined?

high end light meters, and color analyzers can express it as a percentage.
now, some people can perceive a' 60 hz flicker in anything.

for the rest of us, there is an app.
http://www.visosystems.com/products/flicker-tester/

you can read there for the fine points.

at the current time, there is no AHJ break point for percentage of flicker.
in calif. for T24 compliance certification, when lights are dimmed, they
cannot flicker. if you can see perceptible flicker, that's too much.

 

[gadfly56]

high end light meters, and color analyzers can express it as a percentage.
now, some people can perceive a' 60 hz flicker in anything.

for the rest of us, there is an app.
http://www.visosystems.com/products/flicker-tester/

you can read there for the fine points.

at the current time, there is no AHJ break point for percentage of flicker.
in calif. for T24 compliance certification, when lights are dimmed, they
cannot flicker. if you can see perceptible flicker, that's too much.

Folks just have to hope that they don't get the inspector who's nervous system baud rate is 3 sigma on the fast side.

 

[Fnewman]

If I "overdesign" a job because it meets the client's standards (not at all uncommon in heavy industry) then as far as I am concerned, I expect it to be installed that way. If the contractor wants to use alternate methods or materials, he has to get it approved by me, probably the client and possibly the AHJ if that authority has previously approved the detailed plans (rarely happens for projects on large industrial sites). If the contractor believes that any part of the design does not conform to the code (i'm not perfect), it should be brought to my attention, including the exact code section that is alleged to be in violation. We (me, client, possibly the AHJ and or the client's insurance carrier) will evaluate and let the contractor know how to proceed. Anything done without approval is at the contractor's sole risk.

True, all this can depend on the type of project and its location - commercial projects that will be accessible by the general public tend to get closer scrutiny.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The problem with that perspective is the NEC specifically states...

It is plainly obvious what that means if plans have been 'approved for construction' through the AHJ.

I do not agree with that even a little bit. The approval section only has to do with approval of materials used, and has nothing to do with the plans and specs.

There is no legal authority to enforce plans and specs, unless that legal authority has been granted by the legislative authority that has adopted the code. The only legal enforcement is what the legislative authority has adopted. The enforcement of the plans and specs is a civil matter and the tax payer funded inspector has no business getting into that. That should remain between the contractor, engineer, owner and, if necessary, the courts.

 

[Strathead]

I do not agree with that even a little bit. The approval section only has to do with approval of materials used, and has nothing to do with the plans and specs.

There is no legal authority to enforce plans and specs, unless that legal authority has been granted by the legislative authority that has adopted the code. The only legal enforcement is what the legislative authority has adopted. The enforcement of the plans and specs is a civil matter and the tax payer funded inspector has no business getting into that. That should remain between the contractor, engineer, owner and, if necessary, the courts.

I am with you, Don. Now, when you are working where the AHJ is private, such as a government job, or a University, or a school system. That is a different story. I wonder how many of those on the other side see a new set of plans when the job is VE'd. I don't. The Engineer approves it, but he doesn't redo his specs or his plans. It just happens on the job. If he did do new plans, then I wonder how many times the VE would cost more because of the additional EE work.

Some of the arguments aren't on point. For example, Futrohl. Title 24 is a required code. The person installed a lighting system that wasn't compliant with Title 24. If he can't prove someone else authorized the change, and it was clear the responsibility to ensure code compliance wasn't on him, then shame on him. I would not even expect this to be a discussion with the inspector, but the Engineer.

We have two completely separate issues here. One is code compliance, the other is contractual obligation. They are not the same thing.

 

[Strathead]

Once again, I thank this forum for some fantastic perspectives on these 2 hypothetical questions.
Essentially, I conclude the following:

1. If the project is over-designed by the engineer, then do your installation per the stamped, over-designed drawings.
2. If the project is under-designed by the engineer, then do your installation at least per the minimum code requirements, regardless of the stamped drawings.

Errors and omissions are common place in the engineering workplace. Knowing that, it has always been protocol for me to issue RFI's and VE requests pre-bid or at least pre-contract.

Most generally, these E&O and VE result in Change Orders, so why not take the time to proof your drawings.

Best Regards
:thumbsup:

So much of this discussion has another factor that isn't being discussed. Right, wrong, fair, legal, who's fiscally responsible, and how the game is played are all part of this discussion. I say game because those of us who do the paper side of contracting are playing a game. It is a strategy game that is played out from how you bid, and whether you win, to how the contract is written to whether you made a profit.

All that said, neither of the items you wrote are rules. They are part of the strategy and the game. If and I mean on the occasions that I decide this project I will take it upon myself to do something different that still offers value to the customer, (and this likely means I already know the customer and what they want and need) then I also feel that I then take on the responsibility to "fix" those items the engineer got wrong. In this case the two go hand in hand, and it is something I keep in my pocket in case I am challenged later on. As in, "Yes I did this change on my own, but I also fixed this on my own. You can't have one and not the other." If it is a rigid job where I am not comfortable with making field decisions, then I am definitely not going to take it upon myself to fix things the Engineer did that were not to code. At that point I will write an RFI. I will insist on payment for my time doing this and my time developing any changes involved. I have been told I couldn't recover Project Manager time. I have always won this argument.

 

[Ingenieur]

So much of this discussion has another factor that isn't being discussed. Right, wrong, fair, legal, who's fiscally responsible, and how the game is played are all part of this discussion. I say game because those of us who do the paper side of contracting are playing a game. It is a strategy game that is played out from how you bid, and whether you win, to how the contract is written to whether you made a profit.

All that said, neither of the items you wrote are rules. They are part of the strategy and the game. If and I mean on the occasions that I decide this project I will take it upon myself to do something different that still offers value to the customer, (and this likely means I already know the customer and what they want and need) then I also feel that I then take on the responsibility to "fix" those items the engineer got wrong. In this case the two go hand in hand, and it is something I keep in my pocket in case I am challenged later on. As in, "Yes I did this change on my own, but I also fixed this on my own. You can't have one and not the other." If it is a rigid job where I am not comfortable with making field decisions, then I am definitely not going to take it upon myself to fix things the Engineer did that were not to code. At that point I will write an RFI. I will insist on payment for my time doing this and my time developing any changes involved. I have been told I couldn't recover Project Manager time. I have always won this argument.

how do you charge for a pre-bid RFI
or even post bid? isn't that part of the OH number?
wouldn't the engineer make the changes and you install them?
PM time is standard in our CO request (part of the contract docs), we always pay it if reasonable

a lot depends on the contractor
if he is easy to work with so am I (the vast majority)

if he is a nickel and dime CO con artist it will be a rough road for both of us (very few in my experience)
I got very good at scouring a job during final inspection for the most minute deviations from contract docs
and the redlined as-builts better be perfect
and his CO requests better be on time, within 5 working days of him identifying the issue, or it is rejected period
and in the contract form with time sheets, invoices, etc.
by accepting the contract he agreed to the terms

it is much better to form a cooperative relationship than adversarial
:thumbsup:

 

[Strathead]

how do you charge for a pre-bid RFI
or even post bid? isn't that part of the OH number?
wouldn't the engineer make the changes and you install them?
PM time is standard in our CO request (part of the contract docs), we always pay it if reasonable

a lot depends on the contractor
if he is easy to work with so am I (the vast majority)

if he is a nickel and dime CO con artist it will be a rough road for both of us (very few in my experience)
I got very good at scouring a job during final inspection for the most minute deviations from contract docs
and the redlined as-builts better be perfect
and his CO requests better be on time, within 5 working days of him identifying the issue, or it is rejected period
and in the contract form with time sheets, invoices, etc.
by accepting the contract he agreed to the terms

it is much better to form a cooperative relationship than adversarial
:thumbsup:

Prebid RFI's I wouldn't charge. Again EVERY project is a new game. Every game has different moves and responses. If the job is a truly low bid, competitive bid, then I am likely not going to write an RFI. If it is something that will save money, I may reduce my bid and expect to recover the reduction by not giving back profit and overhead which I don't give back anyway. If it is an item that increases cost, I may make sure my clarifications place the onus right back on the Engineer and expect to fight the good fight for a change order. We are not being paid to design the project and the Sperring ruling (I think that is the right one) in the Supreme Court doesn't allow the designer to get paid for designing a project and then creating contract language that places correcting the design on the installer.

I once argued a ton of change orders on a California school project. They tried to use language that said, the contractor is responsible to ensure the design meets code and didn't conflict with other plans, basically that receptacles were at the right height for furniture etc. I asked the owner's rep., "Why did you pay for an Architect? With that statement you could send out a blank set of with only that statement on it and say give me a price." I won every penny. BTW, in this case, I had the EE on my side because I pointed where the backgrounds he used from the Architect weren't the same as the ones issued on the A plans. Sot the Architect obviously was negligent.

 

[Ingenieur]

Prebid RFI's I wouldn't charge. Again EVERY project is a new game. Every game has different moves and responses. If the job is a truly low bid, competitive bid, then I am likely not going to write an RFI. If it is something that will save money, I may reduce my bid and expect to recover the reduction by not giving back profit and overhead which I don't give back anyway. If it is an item that increases cost, I may make sure my clarifications place the onus right back on the Engineer and expect to fight the good fight for a change order. We are not being paid to design the project and the Sperring ruling (I think that is the right one) in the Supreme Court doesn't allow the designer to get paid for designing a project and then creating contract language that places correcting the design on the installer.

I once argued a ton of change orders on a California school project. They tried to use language that said, the contractor is responsible to ensure the design meets code and didn't conflict with other plans, basically that receptacles were at the right height for furniture etc. I asked the owner's rep., "Why did you pay for an Architect? With that statement you could send out a blank set of with only that statement on it and say give me a price." I won every penny. BTW, in this case, I had the EE on my side because I pointed where the backgrounds he used from the Architect weren't the same as the ones issued on the A plans. Sot the Architect obviously was negligent.

I like the game as long as it doesn't get personal (hard not to do with $$$ of a job on the line)
we always addressed all RFI's by addendum and made all bidders acknowledge or they were considered non-responsive

that is why I previously said a 'conform to code' clause is worthless if you count on it to remedy the engineer's errors or omissions

what must be realized 90-95% of the design is done upfront in the docs
5-10% in the field
just the way it is, no one (or system) is perfect
that is why contingency is carried and CO's utilized

I've never lost an arbitration or case
and have always negotiated a fair resolution
the only time it's gone to arbitration/court is when the contractor (imo) was not being reasonable (I'm sure he thought the opposite)
most contractors don't do documentation well, so if you pound them with docs they get over-whelmed
with a letter closer like, 'unless replied to by this date I will consider this to be an accurate representation or a resolution to the matter', this will hold up
must be delivered by 2 methods (email, regular mail, certified mail and regular mail, etc.)
our lawyer has seen it all, you better get up bright and early to out fox him

 

[Smart $]

I do not agree with that even a little bit. The approval section only has to do with approval of materials used, and has nothing to do with the plans and specs.

...

It does have to do with the 'approved for construction' plans indirectly. If the plans call for a specific size and type conductor and raceway, this specification has already been approved. It's just like an AHJ accepting that UL listed equipment has already been approved. No need to reinspect and reapprove. If you don't see it, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Strathead]

d

I've never lost an arbitration or case
and have always negotiated a fair resolution
the only time it's gone to arbitration/court is when the contractor (imo) was not being reasonable (I'm sure he thought the opposite)
most contractors don't do documentation well, so if you pound them with docs they get over-whelmed
with a letter closer like, 'unless replied to by this date I will consider this to be an accurate representation or a resolution to the matter', this will hold up
must be delivered by 2 methods (email, regular mail, certified mail and regular mail, etc.)
our lawyer has seen it all, you better get up bright and early to out fox him

A couple things I get impressions of. You are likely in the class of EE's I would enjoy working with. Just the fact that you seem to understand my use of the term game as a descriptor not a devious plan to rule the world one change order at a time. I have never had to go to arbitration, I have always walked away satisfied and that include one time recovering almost 10% extra of the original contract in reverse liquidated damages because the bad design created a one year longer project. One adage I have is, "If you don't like my first run at a change order, you definitely won't like my second one." I NEVER put everything I could justify covering in my collective changes. It is always a two way street when we work together. I always leave something on the table. I don't believe in back charges to other contractors if it is avoidable and I don't believe in being greedy on changes. And lastly, I am very good at the paperwork. Even if I don't provide backing for a change, I have created it prior. I rarely need to manipulate the numbers to match the change. On the above referenced job, I had over 115 RFI's. The school once chastised me for that. By then the GC and the Electrical Engineer were on my side. The GC challenged the school, "Review the RFI's then please, come back and tell us which ones he shouldn't have written." The next week the guy came back and apologized. From then on the Architect was in the hot seat. I am sorry, but in this case, and I don't say this lightly, the Architect was truly negligent.

 

[ggunn]

I hope you guys will forgive me for not reading all the responses in their entirety, but my experience with the AHJ's around here is that with a commercial PV system for which an as built set of plans has been stamped by a PE, if the installation deviates from the plans, the AHJ will fail the inspection whether the installation is code compliant or not.

 

[Sierrasparky]

A couple things I get impressions of. You are likely in the class of EE's I would enjoy working with. Just the fact that you seem to understand my use of the term game as a descriptor not a devious plan to rule the world one change order at a time. I have never had to go to arbitration, I have always walked away satisfied and that include one time recovering almost 10% extra of the original contract in reverse liquidated damages because the bad design created a one year longer project. One adage I have is, "If you don't like my first run at a change order, you definitely won't like my second one." I NEVER put everything I could justify covering in my collective changes. It is always a two way street when we work together. I always leave something on the table. I don't believe in back charges to other contractors if it is avoidable and I don't believe in being greedy on changes. And lastly, I am very good at the paperwork. Even if I don't provide backing for a change, I have created it prior. I rarely need to manipulate the numbers to match the change. On the above referenced job, I had over 115 RFI's. The school once chastised me for that. By then the GC and the Electrical Engineer were on my side. The GC challenged the school, "Review the RFI's then please, come back and tell us which ones he shouldn't have written." The next week the guy came back and apologized. From then on the Architect was in the hot seat. I am sorry, but in this case, and I don't say this lightly, the Architect was truly negligent.

I like the game as long as it doesn't get personal (hard not to do with $$$ of a job on the line)
we always addressed all RFI's by addendum and made all bidders acknowledge or they were considered non-responsive

that is why I previously said a 'conform to code' clause is worthless if you count on it to remedy the engineer's errors or omissions

what must be realized 90-95% of the design is done upfront in the docs
5-10% in the field
just the way it is, no one (or system) is perfect
that is why contingency is carried and CO's utilized

I've never lost an arbitration or case
and have always negotiated a fair resolution
the only time it's gone to arbitration/court is when the contractor (imo) was not being reasonable (I'm sure he thought the opposite)
most contractors don't do documentation well, so if you pound them with docs they get over-whelmed
with a letter closer like, 'unless replied to by this date I will consider this to be an accurate representation or a resolution to the matter', this will hold up
must be delivered by 2 methods (email, regular mail, certified mail and regular mail, etc.)
our lawyer has seen it all, you better get up bright and early to out fox him

Prebid RFI's I wouldn't charge. Again EVERY project is a new game. Every game has different moves and responses. If the job is a truly low bid, competitive bid, then I am likely not going to write an RFI. If it is something that will save money, I may reduce my bid and expect to recover the reduction by not giving back profit and overhead which I don't give back anyway. If it is an item that increases cost, I may make sure my clarifications place the onus right back on the Engineer and expect to fight the good fight for a change order. We are not being paid to design the project and the Sperring ruling (I think that is the right one) in the Supreme Court doesn't allow the designer to get paid for designing a project and then creating contract language that places correcting the design on the installer.

I once argued a ton of change orders on a California school project. They tried to use language that said, the contractor is responsible to ensure the design meets code and didn't conflict with other plans, basically that receptacles were at the right height for furniture etc. I asked the owner's rep., "Why did you pay for an Architect? With that statement you could send out a blank set of with only that statement on it and say give me a price." I won every penny. BTW, in this case, I had the EE on my side because I pointed where the backgrounds he used from the Architect weren't the same as the ones issued on the A plans. Sot the Architect obviously was negligent.

I don't like when people refer to this stuff as a game. What ! are we all playing adult pretend and "you can't have my marbles"
The PE or EE should provide for final bid 100% plans and specs. None of this 75 % because the owner did not want to pay. That is bull. I say this because in a real world the EC reviews the plans and specs and then submits for RFI's. I have bid or looked at many a plans over the past 30 years , submitted RFI and played the so called game. However all too much the RFI's go unanswered. Why ? Because the EE or PE like things to be ambiguous. They love to perform a walk through and nail the contractor for things missed or not so correct in order to combat the change orders.

I recently had a EE point to the clause " contractor shall provide a code complaint and electrical system as intended for the use. " The EE clearly made a mistake and tried to hang his hat on that. We EC should not have to have a lawyer on staff to handle these items. We should not have to go to arbitration. This is why things cost so much and why so many contractors fall to the wayside.

That's my rant and I am sticking too it.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It does have to do with the 'approved for construction' plans indirectly. If the plans call for a specific size and type conductor and raceway, this specification has already been approved. It's just like an AHJ accepting that UL listed equipment has already been approved. No need to reinspect and reapprove. If you don't see it, I don't know what to tell you.

I stand by my statement that without specific legislation requiring compliance with the approved plans and specs, the inspector has no legal authority to inspect for compliance with the approved plans and specs. The only legal authority is to inspect the the adopted code. It is not common where the adoption of the codes has included a specific requirement that you must comply with the approved plans and specs. That remains a civil matter between the owner and the installing contractor.